As a mere mortal who is interested in this discussion, permit me to playback
what I think I've heard and see if I have it right. The example I will use is
me. (01)
3D- describes all my physical attributes (dimensions, mass, appearance on
various wavelengths, etc.) By definition this is at a point (slice) of time. (02)
3D+1-add to the 3D model timestamps each attribute(s) of interest, for a point
(slice) in time. This requires a query to address time or else all timestamps
and attributes without timestamps are returned. (03)
4D- I am the eddy in the wave. Within my eddy I am a constant, right until the
wave wipes me out, when I revert to a fluent (?). The wave, being part of the
ocean, eventually suffers the same fate. Time is an integral part of my being
and the status of all attributes are correct for whatever time is of interest. (04)
Is this correct? (05)
Don (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:30 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Presentism etc (07)
On 2/7/2011 3:09 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> We can have our 4D cake, and eat it also in 3D+1 practice, with a few
> transformation calculations thrown in for the philosophers. (08)
Pat H., Matthew W., and Chris P. have been promoting a 4D
representation for its computational regularity and simplicity,
not for its philosophical niceties. (09)
Alfred North Whitehead was a mathematician, who remarked that the
first time he ever entered a classroom on philosophy was when he
retired in the UK and joined the philosophy department at Harvard. (010)
I like a 4D representation for the same reasons as the above,
*and* because it is compatible with Whitehead's ontology --
which is one of the few that is capable of bridging the gap
between science (at the level of relativity and quantum mechanics)
and ordinary human thought and language. (011)
But to do the mapping to ordinary language, it's important
to be flexible, because people frequently move from one
way of talking to another, depending on the context and
point of view. That is why I like to have a general 4D
ontology as a foundation -- it has the simplest mappings
to and from a wider variety of other representations. (012)
John (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
|